Signals are an important part of the CSPP peer review process. They are intended to widen the scope of publishable articles by placing the reputational cost of publication on authors rather than on the journal.
Please note:
Positive signal = 1, negative signal = 0, positive/negative signal = 0.5
Only signals marked with a “*” are used to calculate the JoPP Signal (on the peer reviewed paper pages).
Objective categories
Activist: 2/2
Article proposes a critique of a policy or practice with specific action proposals or suggestions.
Academic: 2/2*
Article follows conventions of academic research article e.g. position in literature, cited sources, and claimed contribution.
Prospective: 0/2
Article is based on developments that have not yet occurred.
Formalised: 0/2
Article is based on formal logic or mathematical technique.
Language quality: 2/2*
Standard of English expression in article is excellent.
Subjective categories
Comprehensiveness: 2/2*
Most related sources are mentioned in article [this is an invitation to careful selection rather than a demonstration of prowess in citation collection i.e. apt and representative choices made in source citations].
Logical flow: 2/2*
Ideas are well organised in article.
Originality: 2/2*
The argument presented in article is new.
Commendations
Review A
The article describes the authors criteria for a feminist hackathon.
describe an actual hackathon that took place. Finally, clearly critiques the
hackathons success in light of these criteria. While I raised a number of
concerns above, most notably regarding the method around the construction
of the tenants of feminist hackathon, and the analysis method, I do think this is
an important case study which I would very much like to see published. I feel
the above critiques could be addressed by the authors without the need for
another review cycle, and perhaps just discuss the method issue as an area
of future work. A feminist critique of hackathons which suggestions for
improvement is something of tremendous importance, and this is a good case
study.
Review B
The paper presents useful insights into approaches to re-position
hackathons, to address their limitations and current critiques and focus
more closely on encouraging social aims. The focus on strategies within the
discussion were particularly interesting and practical for groups seeking to
make the most of hackathons that productively address complex design
challenges.